Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is my understanding.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota and then the Senator from Alaska for questions.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I do, and I appreciate the Senator from Michigan making the point. What he is telling us is the ability to give meals and wine in one given day probably outstrips the ability to consume of any Member of Congress. They could not possibly consume in one day the potential amount that is allowed under the so-called McConnell amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator is correct. What the Senator from Minnesota and I have been doing, because we are so staggered as to how much can be done in a day, we are giving the minimum interpretation. I think the Senator is right, it is not a minimum interpretation; it could be several instances in a day. I have to sort of do the higher math. I guess what we are talking about, if you can do it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, I guess what we are talking about is $100,000 a year.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Then you are really talking about an exceptional practice. I yield to the Senator from Michigan for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I do want to stay with my position. I am used to it. I think that is the whole point. The public perks that have been eliminated, things like haircuts and the free gym, those things sound pretty good. But when you lay out what we are talking about--which is not just theoretical, this does happen, as I gave the example of the American Bankers Association--it sounds real good. When you are talking about people who already receive $133,000 in salary a year, which a lot of Americans think is pretty high----

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, and especially the Senator from Minnesota, in supporting a tough, meaningful and loophole- free gift ban bill. That is what S. 1061 is all about. I urge the Senate to reject the empty reform proposal put forward by the junior Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. We have been at this issue for some time, Mr. President. You think you have said it every way you can. And it is obvious that we ought to deal with this and get rid of it. But the Senator from Minnesota just came up with what I would have to say is just about the best formulation of what is going on here which I have heard. Those are the very same people who feel comfortable going after school lunches, who feel very comfortable going after many of the things that are important for low-income people in this society, the same people who will go to the wall to protect these lavish lunches and dinners that have become part of the Washington culture. I cannot think of a better formulation, and yes, I say to the Senator, I wish I would have thought of it myself. That says it all. That is what it appears, Mr. President, this 104th Congress is becoming all about--choices but very bad choices, blocking real reform and saying that things like school lunches have to be eliminated in the name of deficit reduction. Mr. President, to review again, because the Senator from Minnesota and I need to keep pointing out to people that this is not something we thought up yesterday, this has been a long, hard struggle about something that should have been dealt with in about 5 minutes it is so clear; that Members of Congress should be paid their salary and that is all they should get. They should not get all kinds of freebies on the side. I will tell you, back home it is a real simple concept. It has nothing to do with party. There is no Republican coming up to me in Wisconsin and saying, ``Hey, Russ, you really got to preserve that gift thing. It is an important part of the way Washington works.'' Nobody has said that to me in Wisconsin in the last 2\1/2\ years. And it has been just over a year since the Senate, Mr. President, passed a tough gift ban bill by a margin of 95 to 4. What is wrong? Almost every Member of this body has already voted for the bill the Senator from Minnesota was just talking about. You would think that when a bill passes by such a large margin, it would not be all that difficult for that bill to become a law. After experiencing this for a couple of years, I am not naive enough to believe that proposed legislation which will have such a profound effect on the manner in which this institution operates with such a restraining effect on the special interests would sail through Congress with little or no trouble. What I find particularly regrettable is that when this process began I did not think the practice was as widespread as I do think now. The resistance makes me wonder, makes me think that it is just not a question of perception but there may be more reality to it; otherwise, why would people fight so hard to prevent what was already a 95-to-4 vote to be redone in the 104th Congress. It makes me wonder. It makes me wonder just how much of this is really going on. And there is no way for me to quantify it, but it certainly makes me wonder. The fact is this body has gone on record repeatedly over the past year in favor of gift reforms proposed by myself, the Senator from Minnesota, and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg]. Last May, this body soundly rejected a gift proposal--I will not call it a gift ban because it was not--a gift proposal [[Page S 10588]] similar to the one currently offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky. So everybody, Mr. President, must be wondering why are we having this debate now. In May of last year, as I said, we had a 95-to- 4 vote in the Senate on this legislation. In the fall, 36 Republican Senators, led by the Senator who is now the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, cosponsored, actually cosponsored, Mr. President, a resolution containing the exact gift provisions put forth in the Wellstone-Feingold-Lautenberg proposal. Mr. President, the exact same provisions, not the McConnell proposal but the exact same provisions of the Wellstone proposal, were cosponsored by 36 Republican Senators, yet for some reason there are some Members of this body who feel we need to repeat the debate we had last spring when an alternative gift proposal was put forth that is remarkably similar to the proposal before us today. The proposal last year, the so-called McConnell-Johnston proposal, was soundly defeated. The McConnell-Johnston proposal was defeated 59 to 39, and yet here we are today having the same debate all over again. One of the clear messages that came out of last year's election to me, Mr. President, is that the public is tired of the way business is done in Washington. And everybody says that, but I think that is true. They have to define exactly what aspects of what goes on in Washington people do not like, but it is not terribly difficult to figure it out, yet real reform, like campaign finance reform or gift ban legislation, seems to constantly be put on the back burner. I am absolutely confident that campaign finance reform and gift ban are among the things almost every American would describe as what is needed for reform. So if November 8 was about reform, and I think it was, these should be on the front burner, not constantly being blocked procedurally. Some say that the very first bill we passed this Congress in the Senate, a bill which forced Congress to live under the laws it passes, was an important reform bill, and I agree with the premise of that bill, and I voted for it. We should have to abide by the rules we make for everybody else, but in no way should we pretend that the American people have somehow had their faith restored in this institution because of that one rather minor, although worthwhile, piece of legislation. Other people say we have reformed Congress by pointing to the reduction and elimination of many of the public perks available to Members of Congress. And they say we have cleaned up Washington; we do not need the gift ban. Fortunately, there has been progress in that area--no more free haircuts or free stationery or no more free gymnasium. People come up to me and say, ``When are you going to get rid of that free gym and the free haircuts?'' And I say, ``Well, it has been done.'' It should have been done a long time ago. But what they know and what really disappoints people, they constantly are disappointed to find that lobbyists can still send Members of Congress on free vacation trips to the Bahamas. Last year, I had the chance to say that I think free gifts really is the mother of all perks. It is the big one. Those free trips to the Bahamas are an awful lot more in value than the free haircuts which we have eliminated. The lobbyists can still treat Members to expensive meals at some of Washington's finest restaurants, and the lobbyists can still send the flatbed carts loaded with gifts and goodies all around Capitol Hill, and they are continuing to do it. So what I have noticed--it is an interesting distinction--is that there seems to be a great deal of interest in going after public perks. Members of both parties are willing to go after public perks, things like the haircuts and the free stationery, the congressional pensions, health care--these are things that certainly can be described as perks, and that are provided by public dollars, taxpayers' dollars. But the same people who are in the front row to attack these public perks have what I can only describe as a steadfast apprehension to deal with the private perks, the hidden private interest, special interest perks that come from the lobbyists and the special interest community. Those we do not touch. Those are not even mentioned in the Republican Contract With America, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has pointed out. In other words, the perks that are essentially provided by the Government and the American people are bad, but the attitude is that the perks provided by the special interests are somehow benign, not a problem, just the way things are done in Washington. That is the message coming from Congress if we do not deal with the gift ban and if we do not deal with the really big issue, as the Senator from Minnesota has pointed out, which would be next, and that is campaign financing. It is distressing to open up the newspaper or turn on the TV and see repeated stories of the cozy relationship between the lobbyists and the legislators. The level of special access that the lobbyists are receiving continues to undermine the confidence of the American people in their Government. It really does further the belief of the average working American that that person has little or no voice in Washington, DC. Let me mention, for example, just one item that appeared in a national journal publication. It appeared on May 5, 1995. This column briefly describes a retreat hosted by the American Bankers Association for congressional staffers and their spouses at a West Virginia resort. This retreat occurred on the weekend before the House Banking Committee was to vote on legislation backed by the American Bankers Association. The article notes that during the weekend retreat there would be morning discussions about bank modernization issues but the afternoons would be open for the staffers to ``indulge in golf, horseback riding, swimming, and other recreational activities that the posh Homestead offered.'' Now, when our constituents vote for us, and vote for us knowing what the salary is, they do not know about these fringe benefits that are provided. And here, Mr. President, just a few days before a congressional committee is to vote on a particular bill, the staff members from that committee are invited to an all-expense paid resort weekend by the lobbying association backing that particular bill. This is a disturbing practice. It sends a clear and strong message to the American people that this institution is at least perceived to be under the control of those who have the money and access to influence the political process. So to me it is clear that we have a very serious problem here. The issue before us today then is how we can best solve that problem and address the very cynical and skeptical feelings the American people sometimes hold for this institution. I think we are all familiar with the gift ban approach embodied in S. 101. The sponsors of that legislation, including myself and the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Michigan, believe in a gift ban--a gift ban. No gifts from lobbyists period. No more free meals from lobbyists at fancy restaurants, no more free vacations paid for by lobbyists at sun spots around the world. This is not a gift ban we are trying to put in place. The McConnell proposal is a lesson in how best to dodge this issue. It ducks; it weaves; it does everything but ban gifts. In fact, Mr. President, what I think it does, if we have the wrong vote out here today or tomorrow, is enshrine gift giving in Washington and forever say that it is perfectly acceptable for Members of Congress to accept an unlimited number of gifts from lobbyists. Let me repeat that. Under the McConnell proposal, lobbyists could give legislators as many gifts as they can possibly afford. How can anyone come out on the Senate floor and suggest that allowing an unlimited number of gifts--and it is unlimited--can be accurately portrayed as a gift ban or can accurately be portrayed as reform? It is the polar opposite of reform. It is a total giving in to the current system. Last year, Mr. President, when our gift ban and lobbying reform legislation was defeated only by a filibuster from the other side, we actually could hear the lobbyists gathered outside the Senate Chamber cheering in victory. But that is nothing, because if the McConnell proposal goes through, I think we are going to hear the sound of champagne corks popping outside this [[Page S 10589]] Chamber, because it will be a permanent enshrining of the gift-giving practice. That is, because under the McConnell proposal, the following could still happen. Just one example, the Senator from Minnesota was pointing out the total dollar value of what one lobbyist can do in 1 year for a Member of the Senate. We came up with the $36,500 figure. Let me give an example of how a lobbyist's week might go if he or she wanted to show a legislator a good time before a key vote. They could take a Senator out for Chateaubriand and good wine on Monday. They could take him or her down to the Orioles game on Tuesday with box seats. Then on Wednesday a good concert, maybe over at the Kennedy Center. Then Thursday, a nice bottle of cognac could arrive at the Senator's office from the same lobbyist. And then to top it off, on the weekend, just before the vote the following Tuesday, a little trip to the Virgin Islands for the whole family, and that is all legal under the McConnell reform proposal, totally legal.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I hope I am right. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator's question, I think it adds up to $36,500 per lobbyist per Member of Congress every year. And it could not even exclude the lobbyist. So the potential is truly unlimited. But I think the minimum figure is $36,500 from one lobbyist and one Member of Congress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator will yield, I think he correctly identified the other day that there are two provisions in this McConnell proposal that really gut the bill from having the name ``reform'' properly attached to it. You can call anything you want reform--welfare reform or health care reform. Unless it changes things positively, it is not that. Really, these two provisions, the one the Senator talked about in terms of $100 a day and the allowing of charitable trips to be determined not by an across-the-board rule or any real standards but just by the Senate Ethics Committee, which is, of course, controlled and in fact is constituted by Members of the Senate, it means you are really not taking away any sort of strict rule that says we are not going to allow that at all. So I think the combination of those two provisions makes it impossible to call this reform but at best window dressing, and I think the American public would be very distressed to learn what is still permitted under either the travel portion or the meals and gift provisions.

Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator will yield, I had a similar experience when I first became a member of the Wisconsin State Senate. Nobody had ever come up to me on the State capitol ground and said, ``Senator, do you like lobster?'' About a week after being a member of the State senate, one of the lobbyists came up, put his arm around me, and said, ``We are just delighted to have you here, Senator. Do you and your wife enjoy lobster tail?'' It took me about a minute to realize what was going on. Being from Wisconsin, that was illegal. It is not, though, at the Federal level. But it sort of dawns on you that suddenly people are a little more interested in socializing and buying you dinner possibly because you have been elected to public office.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to quantify that example. Under the strictest interpretation of the McConnell proposal, the one that would change S. 101, even if you interpreted it to mean that you could only give $100 a day of food and wine and so on, it would mean that every lobbyist and every individual could give each Member of Congress $36,500 of those kinds of things. And is not the Senator really saying that is not even what it means, that it is worth more than that, more than $100 a day per person for everyone in the universe, for every Member of the Congress?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Per person.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is the strictest interpretation.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree. If the Senator will yield, you can argue that this is just slightly tougher than current law that says that if a gift is over $100, or a meal is over $100 and it is less than $250, I guess you can accept it but you are banned from over $250. But the contributions under $100 do not count. They do not count toward that. This puts into the law forever a permission, a right, if you will, to take anything up to $100 a day from everyone. So it really is worse because it formalizes potentially in a statute as opposed to a resolution, depending on how it comes out, this practice as something that is permitted and maybe even encouraged in Washington.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It seems like we have been talking about it for about 2 years. We sort of came to this in different ways. I got here in the Senate, and I just knew that as a State senator from Wisconsin, we had a law that said you cannot even accept a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. I understood that in the 10 years I was in the State senate. I was a little surprised to find out they did otherwise here. So we put this in effect for myself and my staff, and then I found out independently that the Senator from Minnesota, from another reform- minded State, was working an overall bill that would apply that to all Members of Congress. We obviously crossed paths and thought that would make sense as part of a broader effort to try to get the influence of big private money a little bit more out of Washington. We got other supporters as time went on. That is how it really started.

Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator will yield, I just want to say that I remember--the Senator and I talked about this--the biggest cheer we heard in the lobby out here in the reception area last year was the moment when the gift ban was defeated. There was a cheer that went up in the room apparently from some of the interests that were involved in this. I can assure you, based on the points made about the McConnell amendment, if that passes, it will again be a victory for those who want to continue the current system. It cannot possibly be called reform, as the Senator from Minnesota has pointed out.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would agree. I like to call it the circle of special influence in Washington. There are different links in the chain: the gift problem, the campaign finance problem, and the problem of the revolving door, where Members of Congress or their staff members work here and then go to work for special interests and lobbying back right away. It is only one part of it, the gift ban. But one of the things that bothers me about this gift issue that the Senator mentions is the fact that this involves the access issue. There is a serious problem for any Member of the Senate. The Senator and I represent millions of people. It is so hard to equitably balance distributing your own time for your constituents. It is obviously difficult to meet with them individually. If there is something out there, whether it be trips or meals, that involves a substantial amount of extra time for certain people because they happen to provide these certain things, that distorts our ability to equitably spend time with constituents. I think it is embarrassing to even have to come out on the floor and talk about this. It seems to me to be so simple that we should just ban it. It is not that we have not wanted to dispose of it. I can assure you the Senator from Minnesota and I and the Senator from Michigan would like nothing better than to have this over with. We do not want opportunity after opportunity to debate this. But there has been a real effort, frankly, under both Republican and Democrat leadership, to move this issue off to the side. We want it resolved. I would like to just have to no longer be able to point out to people that in my office we have received in the last 2\1/2\ years--and this is sort of the small part of this, but it is the really silly part of it--1,072 gifts, from inexpensive calendars to coffee mugs, T-shirts, motor oil, spark plugs, cast iron bookends, a Japanese mask, fruit baskets, cakes, cheese, pecans, sausage, eggs, steaks, almonds, onions, garlic, honey, bread, peaches, sweet potatoes, sugar, chocolate, candy bars, tea, coffee, dates, barley mustard, wine, Girl Scout cookies, and three lollipops. Do people not have better things to do than to prepare these little packages for Members of the Senate and the House so they can say that they, too, have handed out some goodies to the Senators' offices? We have serious business to do here. For our staff members to be bothered with 1,072 of these little well-intentioned gifts is just another example how this process does not make sense. And if we just banned it, we would be able to focus more clearly on what we should really be doing, which is the work of the people who elected us.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree. I cannot believe that this great institution wants to continue to have its reputation and its history really being besmirched by some of these ``Prime Time'' programs and others that are able to take what perhaps is an isolated instance in the case of certain Members of Congress and show them playing tennis with lobbyists and just cast doubt on the whole institution. There have been enough problems already. I really have to believe that this institution will rise up and say we do not want this. In fact, I say to the Senator from Minnesota, even the lobbyists do not really want this in a lot of cases. I flew out here this morning and two or three of the prominent lobbyists from Wisconsin said, ``We hope you win on this thing.'' They are tired of this expectation that if one telecommunications giant takes somebody out to dinner, does not the other one have to. So they want to be free of this. They want to be professionals, most of them, as well. If we just have a per se rule as in Wisconsin--lobbyists cannot do it; legislators cannot do it--it frees everyone from this sort of murky question of should I really do that even though it does not look very good and seems inappropriate? It is very important for everyone involved. I think in most cases people have the best intentions here. We need the per se rule and should not leave it up to the Senate Ethics Committee to say this charity or that trip makes sense or does not.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, George Andrew Vukelich was born in South Milwaukee. A radio personality, a journalist, a writer, an environmentalist, a political activist, George was an institution in Wisconsin. He would bristle at this thought, but it is undeniably true. I knew George long before he knew me, having listened to him on the radio for years. As Papa Hambone and Bill Patrick, George was a well known radio personality in Madison. After studying broadcasting in Toronto under Lorne Greene, he began his radio career in the early 1950's. Over the years, his radio shows ranged from storytelling to jazz to political commentary, and were as much a part of life in Madison as the lakes. George was a dedicated environmentalist who loved the outdoors, and for anyone who listened to his radio shows or read his articles or books, that love was contagious. A gifted writer, George was honored by the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the Council of Wisconsin Writers, the Milwaukee Press Club, and Trout Unlimited, among others. A journalist of fierce commitment and passionate belief, George's columns would skewer the powerful and champion the powerless with wit and ardor. And, along with his wife Helen, George lived his beliefs, a character trait notably present in their children. George loved baseball and fishing. He loved politics and the written word. Most of all, he loved Helen and his family. George Vukelich died this past July 4. That his death fell on our Nation's birthday, the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, is fitting, for I can think of no one who better reflected the joyous spirit and burning ideals that day represents. Thousands have lost a good friend, and the north country has lost a talented and fervent advocate. As one friend wrote of George's passing: For one night at least, we will know why the loons cry. Papa Hambone used to end his program with: ``For good food, for good wine, and most of all, for good friends, thank God. His thousands of friends will add: And for George Vukelich, thank God.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes of the time of the Senator from Arizona be given to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I saw the recent reports on the Members of the Senate. You were not high on the list. I regret to say that neither was I.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. He and I have worked together on many issues. We sat down, as he indicated, in the beginning of this Congress and listed a couple of our top priorities of what we would like to see happen here. At the very top of the list was our shared belief that if there is anything that needs to be changed in this country, it is the way we finance campaigns. Three Members of this body, including the Senator from Minnesota, myself, and the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, did get elected even though we were not Members of Congress and were not personally wealthy. But we all know we are the exceptions to the rule.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator--may I withhold?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from South Carolina very much. I just want to briefly comment on what we just resolved with regard to the campaign finance reform issue. I am very gratified by the bipartisan vote, very strong vote, including 11 Members on the opposite side of the aisle, against tabling the sense-of-the-Senate resolution with regard to the issue of bringing up and considering campaign finance reform during the 104th Congress. It is one of the strongest bipartisan votes we have had on this floor during this 104th Congress. Now the majority leader has suggested that as a perfecting amendment. In addition to a number of items that were originally in the Mack substitute that did not include campaign finance reform, they have now offered to include in that list--for the first time--campaign finance reform. It is something that should be considered during the 104th Congress. Mr. President, this is precisely what we had hoped for, a vote by the Senate. I hope, given the fact that it is the majority leader's intention to support his own proposal, that we will have very, very strong bipartisan support to add that to the list. This is a shift from earlier in the day when the proposal by the Senator from Florida listed many important items but did not include-- in fact excluded--campaign finance reform. So we are extremely pleased that we will have the vote, another vote in addition to the other one that we had, with the vote which was very strong, to indicate that before we leave here in the 104th Congress on a bipartisan basis we should reform this terrible system. I again thank the Senator from South Carolina for his courtesy.